Very Jungian.

I would say it is difficult to listen to ourselves. The biases are often consciously held to based on ‘instances’ rather than a more ‘combined’ use of experiences and knowledge.

My own goto attitude is to lean hard into inner-liberalism whilst exerting outward conservatism. This way my inner chaos of myriad opinions and stances is always there to say ‘but ...’ without wholeheartedly adhering to a singular outward projection.

Admittedly, I have been lucky enough to experience a 3-4 way internal discussion with myself (as separate ‘parts’ of my whole). It also helps if you’re inclined to be very open and somewhat dangerously curious.

I’m pretty sure the core of this discussion could lead fo some interesting thoughts on Derrida and language.

I definitely think that narration is central to the whole way we understand ourselves and life. I say that because the way we frame our experiences, and everything else is interpretation, requiring narrative voice. I once read an overview of philosophy book by Bryan Magee and it was organized in an autobiographical way. I thought that this worked well because each of us interacts with ideas through the course of life, so it can be useful to look at philosophy in that way, starting from our own lives, and the way they are interweaved with our own narrative or autobiographical experiences.

Are we declaiming on our Cartesian theatre stage, or are we Mike Leigh... or some such improvisational director?

I know I often encourage my cast to become dark and potentially offensive characters. E.g. when I'm in busy traffic. Of course, there is always a clear moral perspective to the resulting drama. Not.

Each of us "narrates" by internally characterising, contextualising, narrativising, emphasising and interpreting the content of one's observation of and interaction with one's environment. — Judaka

Just to clarify, when you say "narration" I assume you mean speaking actual words to ourselves in our minds. You don't mean just our temperament, attitude, or outlook. Is that correct? I certainly experience that. I'm a very verbal person. I have trouble stopping the voice in my head. On the other hand, during most of my waking hours there is no narration of that sort at all. It pops up intermittently when I need it, as when I need to get my thoughts together or talk to someone, or when I don't need it, as when I worry or fantasize.

Am I talking about the same thing you are?

Narration includes but is not limited to speaking actual words in your mind. Your attention, for example, is part of how you narrate your world. If you are walking down the street and admiring the buildings, or the cars, or the people, or the birds, or looking at your phone - these choices alter your experience. What emotions you experience, how you interpret things, what you choose to focus on, are part of your narration with or without speaking actual words in your mind. It all plays a role in your style of narration which is influenced by your personal biases and characteristics.

Each of us "narrates" by internally characterising, contextualising, narrativising, emphasising and interpreting the content of one's observation of and interaction with one's environment. Our narration is biased, generally going unchallenged, its production is on one hand composed of elements outside of our control, in that others perceive or would perceive what you do, largely, as you do. On the other, how we narrate is influenced by our biases and intentions.

Why are narration and bias connected, is it not possible to narrate in an unbiased way? By the word ‘biased’ I’m taking it to mean being exposed as predisposed to making decisions in an unfair or prejudiced way; is this the way you mean it?

What’s frequently called ‘objective truth’ is like narration. However, narration is associated with unreality, but narration is the sublation of unreality so as to appear in the guise of plainly concrete reality. In film for instance, narration guides the story but has the common characteristic feature of being real events experienced by a subject. As I see it bias and challenging of narration is opposed to this because it’s about emphasis and definitiveness.

To talk about narration as if the real and unreal could be easily distinguished is something like weaving a narrative within a narrative. As if there is a position from which our actions - in a narrative sense - could be judged like a movie where we claim to know what is real and what not, isn’t that a kind of illusion don’t you think?

Why are narration and bias connected, is it not possible to narrate in an unbiased way? By the word ‘biased’ I’m taking it to mean being exposed as predisposed to making decisions in an unfair or prejudiced way; is this the way you mean it? — kudos

No, by bias, I meant that we have particular tendencies, opinions, feelings, as opposed to being neutral. Offer improvements and I will edit, I do recognise your interpretation as reasonable but it is not what I meant in this case.

What’s frequently called ‘objective truth’ is like narration. However, narration is associated with unreality, but narration is the sublation of unreality so as to appear in the guise of plainly concrete reality. In film for instance, narration guides the story but has the common characteristic feature of being real events experienced by a subject. As I see it bias and challenging of narration is opposed to this because it’s about emphasis and definitiveness.

To talk about narration as if the real and unreal could be easily distinguished is something like weaving a narrative within a narrative. As if there is a position from which our actions - in a narrative sense - could be judged like a movie where we claim to know what is real and what not, isn’t that a kind of illusion don’t you think? — kudos

Narration processes a meaningless experience into something that can be understood. It is the only vehicle by which we know the truth, we've never experienced it in any other way. This necessarily ties together truth and fiction, they can't be separated, the narration is both real and personal. A narration might never express an untrue thing to be true and yet the picture it paints could still be misleading. What is true, untrue, fair, reasonable, unbiased and such, are all like, narratives within the narrative about the narrative. Characterisations, emphasis and interpretations etc can alter the role of real events in the narrative. So, it is not my intention to say that we can distinguish between the real and personal, the process of narration blends them together so well that although it is surely true that these two components are what is being blended together, once they have been blended, it not a simple matter to undo what has been done, or to even recognise what has been done.

Narratives are distinctively human. They involve juxtaposition of individual and group ideals with practicality. Their role as a whole masks their implicit and symbolic side, which constructs their transitory existence to appear like something static. But essential to it is that it differs on each viewing and is constantly reordering and reimagining the ideals of individuals and the group.

Narratives also tend to craft language with which to express themselves, like “narrative logic.” From my own experience, the magnitude of the language is related to it’s form and content. The more radical, sexual, or violent the form and content is, the more so the types of desires and ideals that tend to present themselves. This is no surprise if you think of it as being expressive or at least something that can only be fully realized through expression.

I am having difficulty understanding your meaning, unfortunately.

They involve juxtaposition of individual and group ideals with practicality — kudos

I don't actually understand what juxtaposition or ideals you're referring to.

Their role as a whole masks their implicit and symbolic side, which constructs their transitory existence to appear like something static. — kudos

The role of one's narration masks the implicit and symbolic side of the narration? It constructs their transitory existence to appear like something static? I don't understand what you're getting at.

But essential to it is that it differs on each viewing and is constantly reordering and reimagining the ideals of individuals and the group. — kudos

I'm lost.

Narratives also tend to craft language with which to express themselves, like “narrative logic.” From my own experience, the magnitude of the language is related to it’s form and content. The more radical, sexual, or violent the form and content is, the more so the types of desires and ideals that tend to present themselves. This is no surprise if you think of it as being expressive or at least something that can only be fully realized through expression. — kudos

What do you mean by "narratives... craft language with which to express themselves"? Do you mean the narrator crafts language or something else?

When you talk about the magnitude of the language in form and content, are you talking about how a situation may be described with different levels of intensity and focus? That a focus on violent language leads to interpretations and characterisations etc rooted in violence, for example? If so, I agree, it is a good observation. It can highlight how the different nature/nurture circumstances of the narrator impact their narration and their experience of their environment.

They involve juxtaposition of individual and group ideals with practicality

For this I will appeal to the textbook definition:

nar·ra·tive
- a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.
"the hero of his modest narrative"
- the narrated part or parts of a literary work, as distinct from dialogue.
"the dialogue and the narrative suffer from awkward syntax"
- the practice or art of telling stories.
"traditions of oral narrative"
- a representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values.
"the coalition's carefully constructed narrative about its sensitivity to recession victims"

Contrasting this with the word 'story.'

sto·ry
- an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
"an adventure story"
- an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
"the story of modern farming"

So, what do you think it means in the definition mean where it says, "...in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values"? The word has an admixture of usage in psychological and sociological writing, but why choose this word 'narrative,' as opposed to just 'subjective reality'? The word is sometimes used as a type of metaphor for form and content that represents to us something about individuals and the group. In a narrative, what is the main purpose of the protagonist?

In the stories we typically see narratives revolve around some clear quest of good against evil or conflict to be resolved. But ideals are more than just our goals and desired outcomes, they can also be states that reassure, confirm, satisfy, and amalgamate. In a story, when you see the hero fail, doesn't it become so much more powerful when he does so because of some trait we envisage as being worth overcoming? And it makes it more satisfying to see when they do finally confirm and satisfy our shared beliefs about such things as the need for bravery, friendship, and so on. So it is in individual and group life, where failed states do not follow only cold machinations, but can take on a narrative tint in the sense that they reflect what is considered good and right by the group and the individuals that make it up.

So, it is not my intention to say that we can distinguish between the real and personal, the process of narration blends them together so well that although it is surely true that these two components are what is being blended together, once they have been blended, it not a simple matter to undo what has been done, or to even recognise what has been done. — Judaka

Can’t we just agree with Nietzsche that the ‘real’ and the ‘true’ are themselves only kinds of useful fictions?

Can’t we just agree with Nietzsche that the ‘real’ and the ‘true’ are themselves only kinds of useful fictions? — Joshs

Really? Is that true?

Can’t we just agree with Nietzsche that the ‘real’ and the ‘true’ are themselves only kinds of useful fictions? — Joshs

Useful fiction=metaphor

Useful fiction=metaphor — frank

It certainly does

Really? Is that true? — Banno

True as in conforming to an unchanging standard or true as in describing and embodying an irreducible
complicity between appearance and transformation?

So we need two types of "true" in order to make this work?

But moreover, what does "fiction" mean in " kinds of useful fictions" - not true?

Can’t we just agree with Nietzsche that the ‘real’ and the ‘true’ are themselves only kinds of useful fictions?
— Joshs

Really? Is that true? — Banno

I think there's a way out of this deadlock.

It is overwhelmingly likely that my interpretation of a llived situation is in someway mischaracterizing it. If you think about it, this isn't radical at all. It just makes sense. We're always adapting to situations, which means we have limited information going-in, and are continually, constantly, updating.

Because of that, it behooves me to pay close attention and try to skirt my own preconceptions to a reasonable extent. Doing this requires art, or phronesis, or some such: I don't doubt the cat's on the mat, or that gravity doesn't apply the next county over, but as I move from the set of things certain toward the Great Uncertain, I arrive at some point that is somewhere in the middle. That's the spot to live in.

There are lots of different kinds of games, and there is no meta-rule to tell us what rule to follow in any given situation. I think a useful way to approach Nietzschean discussions of truth is to realize the game here is no longer: 'assert truth-apt propositions about reality' but is something more like 'how do we cultivate a fluid meta-relationship to the way in which we judge our own claims.' (i.e. it's very clear, at least to me, Nietzsche would be happy to say the cat's on the mat - that's not what he's on about.)

There isn't any contradiction (though, yes, there is when Nietzsche is too casually cited as a cheat-code for Pure Relativism)

I don't doubt the cat's on the mat, or that gravity doesn't apply the next county over, but as I move from the set of things certain toward the Great Uncertain, I arrive at some point that is somewhere in the middle. — csalisbury

What does it mean to say that the above are ‘certain’ , that they correspond to a subject independent reality? Is that how you are reading Nietzsche?

There isn't any contradiction (though, yes, there is when Nietzsche is too casually cited as a cheat-code for Pure Relativism — csalisbury

If Nietzsche argues for the notion of truth as contingent and relative to continually changing values systems , is that a form of ‘pure relativism’? Or is it a relativism of temporary stabilities?

“The belief in “immediate certainties” is a moral naivete that does credit to us philosophers: but – we should stop being “merely moral,” for once! Aside from morality, the belief in immediate certainties is a stupidity that does us little credit! … It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption. Let us admit this much: that life could not exist except on the basis of perspectival valuations and appearances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and inanity of many philosophers, someone wanted to completely abolish the “world of appearances,” – well, assuming you could do that, – at least there would not be any of your “truth” left either! Actually, why do we even assume that “true” and “false” are intrinsically opposed? Isn't it enough to assume that there are levels of appearance and, as it were, lighter and darker shades and tones of appearance – different valeurs, to use the language of painters? Why shouldn't the world that is relevant to us – be a fiction? And if someone asks: “But doesn't fiction belong with an author?” – couldn't we shoot back: “Why? Doesn't this ‘belonging' belong, perhaps, to fiction as well? Aren't we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn't philosophers rise above the belief in grammar? With all due respect to governesses, isn't it about time philosophy renounced governess-beliefs?” – The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (1901/1967 Will to Power)

what does "fiction" mean in " kinds of useful fictions" - not true? — Banno

It means true in the context of a contingent and relative value system.

Why shouldn't the world that is relevant to us – be a fiction? And if someone asks: “But doesn't fiction belong with an author?” – couldn't we shoot back: “Why? Doesn't this ‘belonging' belong, perhaps, to fiction as well? Aren't we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn't philosophers rise above the belief in grammar? With all due respect to governesses, isn't it about time philosophy renounced governess-beliefs?” – The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs

For this I will appeal to the textbook definition: — kudos

I will humour it but I am using the terms "narrative, narration, narrator" in non-standard ways, as I've tried to define in OP and this thread. There's crossover, I did choose the term because it's a useful image that is similar to the concept I've laid out.

So, what do you think it means in the definition mean where it says, "...in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values"? The word has an admixture of usage in psychological and sociological writing, but why choose this word 'narrative,' as opposed to just 'subjective reality'? — kudos

Personally, it is because I wish to place emphasis on the individual as an actor in the construction of their subjective reality. That one does not just "have", one "does". But I am talking about subjective reality, so I mean, it is a term I could have used.

The word is sometimes used as a type of metaphor for form and content that represents to us something about individuals and the group. — kudos

I agree with that.

In the stories we typically see narratives revolve around some clear quest of good against evil or conflict to be resolved. But ideals are more than just our goals and desired outcomes, they can also be states that reassure, confirm, satisfy, and amalgamate. In a story, when you see the hero fail, doesn't it become so much more powerful when he does so because of some trait we envisage as being worth overcoming? And it makes it more satisfying to see when they do finally confirm and satisfy our shared beliefs about such things as the need for bravery, friendship, and so on. So it is in individual and group life, where failed states do not follow only cold machinations, but can take on a narrative tint in the sense that they reflect what is considered good and right by the group and the individuals that make it up. — kudos

I understand and agree with this. So would you also say that the narrative places characters in their respective roles through this process of recognising and realising ideals? Your explanation reminded me of how people of different political or cultural affiliations might emphasise different ideals and thus characterise and interpret the character, actions, thoughts and such things of others. Is this the type of juxtaposition you are talking about or was it something else?


The "real" and "true" are characterisations, like all characterisations, they can be applied after the meeting of prerequisites one sets, to mean whatever the user interprets these terms to mean. It's all made up. I only see consequences and use, the need for coherency. In this case, truth is a tool for juxtaposition, an idea of what a human might experience under impossible circumstances, that helps to demarcate our own circumstances. Sure, it's a useful fiction, grounded in an idea of intersubjectivity.

This thread and my other thread about how truth is arranged or "the truth besides the truth" all talk about the ways in which truth (intersubjective experience) is processed for use by intelligent beings, the process of using truth intelligently makes it no longer a truth. For me, it is a truth that I have this involuntary experience, that I see objects, for example. That others see these same objects. Perhaps that's all it is and the intersubjective experience is just part of the story or the product of another process but that's what I mean when I talk of the truth.